One thing I really hope is eliminated: the “Leaders and Legends” division names. The most upsetting thing about these titles is that an entire paid committee someone actually thought Leaders could possibly be on the same level as a Legend. Really? Who would choose to be a Leader over being a Legend?

Of course, the “Big Ten” name itself will need some revision. You can get away with 11 members, sure, or maybe even 12, but with 16 you should probably either call yourself the “Big 16″ or “The Big10 + East Coast $”

Some graphic designer will get paid Big Money to reinvent this thing with the addition of another line to the G

Personally, I’m pretty fond of just calling it the Big 16 and naming the divisions “Northwest” and “Southeast.” Simple and straightforward, like the Big Ten was known for at some point.

I’m curious as to how these names will change and I’d love to hear your suggestions. Who knows, it could be the next B16 thing.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Big Ten: Some Big Changes and New Name Suggestions”

“The Legends, not too hard in that we have 215 College Football Hall of Fame members, we have 15 Heisman Trophy winners,” commissioner Jim Delany said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press. “We thought it made perfect sense to recognize the iconic and the legendary through the naming of the division in that regard. … We’ve had plenty of leaders in the conference, that’s for sure, but the emphasis here is to recognize the mission of using intercollegiate athletics and higher education to build future leaders.”

I wanted to say something like, “the legends aren’t leading”, and so that division title is supposed to be a boobie prize of sorts for the “Losers”, but upon reviewing team W-Ls there really seems to be no reason as to why any team is selected for the Legend or Leader distinction, other than, well, they wanted them in that division. The somewhat counter-intuitive rational is that the Big 10 is a leader and legendary, so why not take those words and use them to name the divisions. Right? They aren’t describing the teams per say, just the Big 10 itself, and are otherwise stripped of individual content value.
Teehee.

They won’t pick up the Big 16 because that is not the goal. The whole point of the picking up Maryland and Rutgers was to increase viewing market (common knowledge). The whole point of increasing the viewing market was for television revenue (common knowledge). The whole point of increasing their already huge television contract is to go fishing for elite “brand” colleges. GT and Virginia are not elite, they are back at step one, increasing the market (also destroying competition). The Big 10 in 2014-2015 (whenever ND and Texas can get out of their TV deals) will be fishing for Texas and ND.

I think they will push for a super conference with 20 teams. Some combination (assuming GT and UV are in) of ND, Texas, UNC, Duke, NC State, FSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WV, Kansas, Va Tech. The SEC is in on this as well, they will pick up enough Big East/ACC/Big 12 schools to also reach 20. Look for schools with a brand like ND, Texas, Duke, UNC first, also AAU members.

This will conveniently make 2 conferences of 10. The Big 10 Coastal and Big 10 Plains, or east/midwest, or north/south, hopefully no legends/leaders.